Talk:Origin of life/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 "life" as another state (phase) of matter 2 GA 3 Controversy? 4 Link to "Aromatic hydrocarbon?" 5 Shouldn't this article should be named Origin of life (science)? 6 Links 7 Oxygen 8 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/138.130.194.229 9 "creationist trolls" 10 O2 holocaust 11 God created the World 12 NPOV COMPLAINT 13 reverted text dump 14 omne vivum ex ovo 15 RNA 16 The Urantia Book 16.1 Changing Title of Article 17 God? 18 History of the concept 19 Religion 20 Why are rock formations considered a precursor to life? 21 Suggestion on establishing context in this article 22 mars not just panspermia variation 23 Important new discovery Methanosarcina acetivorans

"life" as another state (phase) of matter

Collier's Encyclopedia, under "Biosphere", describes life as possibly another state or phase of matter (plasma, gas, liquid, solid, life). This definition just seems obvious to me. "Why" it is that way seems to be a meaningless question. Why is there a universe? It just is. We live in a universe where matter, given the right conditions, behaves like life. - Marknw

GA

what is a "ga" or "Ga" is it a gigaaeon? someone please fill in what the measuring unit is. all this creation stuff has its own vocabulary which is never explained

Ga = giga-annum = 10⁹ years. As always, the prefix giga- is abbreviated to capital G; the name of the unit annum is abbreviated to a small a. Capitals for units are only if the unit is named after a person, but the full unit name is lower case, e.g. N = newtons; V = volts. 220.244.224.8 05:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Controversy?

Could you add a note that this controversy exists almost only in US ? Even worse fundamentalists in Europe don't deny evolution. --Taw

Taw - I don't think that is true. My assessment would be that controversy exists almost everywhere in the world, it is only most pronounced in the US. I'd like to see some numbers that verify your claim. - MMGB

Excuse me, even the worst fundamentalist atheists in Europe don't claim to have solved the origin of life from non-living chemicals. 220.244.224.8 05:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What's a fundamentalist atheist? Are there any particular "fundamentals of atheism" other than belief in the non-existence of deities? -- Temtem 01:30, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Numbers:

0 - number of publically known people in Poland who reject evolution

I suspect results will be similar in other European countries. --Taw

OK - I went and got my own numbers. According to Planet Project (a UN research project) around 15-20% of Europeans ascribe to some form of creationist thought, and another site [1] says this is roughly evenly divided between biblical creationism and the "intelligent design" flavours. Christian groups successfully had evolution removed from the Dutch educational curriculum (for final exams) in the mid-90's, however this was reversed shortly afterwards. Specific numbers for various countries are also presented at [2]. You can view the Planet Project Survey at [3] - go to "Religion, Beliefs and Fears", question 15.

Oh and Taw - Poland has one of the highest rates of creationist belief for any European country - 34%. - MMGB

What about other regions than Europe or North America? They don't exist? Homagetocatalonia

---

I'm going to delete this page entirely. Ed, the spectrum of belief here is not reducible to the simplistic two or three schools into which you'd like to divide it. The whole idea is nothing but your personal opinion, and has no place in an encyclopedia meant to educate people about the world as a whole. If you'd like to engage in discussion of these issues to clarify them in your own mind, there are plenty of places on the net for that. But this is an encyclopedia, not a discussion group. We're supposed to report on established mainstream beleifs and widely-held minority beliefs, but not any one man's personal opinion. --Lee Daniel Crocker

It's not entirely my idea, it's based on the Gallup Poll which (I believe) you dug up after I mentioned it. I have been attempting to remove bias from several articles; some of the time this means giving more attention to something I myself believe, other times I have softened claims that something (which I believe) is fact. I continue to appreciate the guidance of those with more wiki experience, and I do realize that my own bias is hard for me to see, but I do accept the wiki NPOV standard. No doubt I will discover that many things I thought I knew were merely my own opinion. --Ed Poor

OK, so it's your opinion and Mr. Gallup's. But it's still an overly simplistic division of a very complex field that deserves better treatment. This has nothing at all to do with how much attention is given to each idea: if you want to write 20 pages on ID, its proponents, its theories, etc., more power to you. But you have to be very careful when describing what others believe. ID certainly exists, and that's why it should be mentioned in these articles, along with dozens of other beliefs. But to blindly state that the whole field can be neatly carved up into A, B, and C is simply false. --LDC

Falsifiable, you mean :-) Here's an example: Everyone in the world either (A) always divides things into 2 categories, (B) never divides them into 2 categories, or (C) does it one way or another from time to time. --Ed Poor

Old contents:

The three main ideas explaining the origin of life are:

a. The Theory of Evolution

New species came into being over millions of years. Natural processes are sufficient to account for this.

b. Intelligent Design

New species came into being over millions of years. Natural processes alone cannot account for this.

c. Sudden Creationism

God created all forms of life around 6,000 years ago, pretty much as they are today.

The accepted scientific view is the theory of evolution, i.e., the neo-Darwinian synthesis. (Only a tiny minority of scientists depart from the accepted view.)

Religions which adhere to Sudden Creationism reject evolution entirely, although some denominations of Christianity recognize that some sort of evolution took place. See Christian views on evolution.

Recently, Intelligent Design has been formulated in an attempt to bridge the gap between faith and science.

It's hardly recent - the notion of ID has been around since at least the time of Newton and probably before. The specific case of "God handles the genetic variations" is just a new twist on a very old theme. I suspect that the Gallup poll referred to reflects the more general idea of ID than the "genetic" version you are presenting, Ed.- MMGB

---

LDC - I'm going to throw some weight in with you on this. I do believe that the topic "Origin of Life Explanations" (or something similarly named) deserves to exist, being a broad and linking page that present the many various theories as to how life emerged. But the rather restricted (and Americo-centric) view that Ed presented is not fair coverage. Also, the article would need to acknowlege the "no origin" explanations that come from hinduism and buddhism - where the universe and life just has "always been".

Taw - I'd like to see some numbers that support your assertion that Europeans reject creationism so extensively - I suspect (hope!) that the percentage is substantially less than in the USA, but ther would still be a significant number. - MMGB

Numbers:

0 - number of publically known people in Poland who reject evolution

I suspect results will be similar in other European countries. --Taw

Taw - please be serious. You opinions do not constitute fact. :) For starters, the "British Biblical Creation Society" has a very prominent website and publishes a quarterly magazine, so there are at least some Europeans who subscribe to creationism. - MMGB

Manning: I'd agree with you, contra Taw, that there certaintly are some European creationists, but I suspect there are a lot fewer than in America, and the public pays a lot less attention to them than in America. I also suspect that the UK probably has significantly more creationists than continental Europe, due to the common language with the US. (Ireland also uses mostly English, but its mostly Catholic, and the Catholic church is pro-evolution.) -- SJK

SJK - I found some hard numbers - I am writing them up right now. PS - why are you up so early? I got a call from my fiance (who cannot calculate time differences) - what's your excuse? - cheers MB

Up early? I haven't been to bed! BTW, where is your fiance? -- SJK

Lucy is in Scotland - have you never read my personal page? :) - MMGB

Now you mention it, I remember. I'd just forgotten. Too little sleep. :)

---

I think the creation article already makes some very fragmentary mention of different views on the origin of life, though more in the context of the origin of the universe in general. Also, I think Hindus believe the universe to be eternal but also believe life to be created -- the universe is cyclic, and all life is destroyed at the end of one cycle to be created anew at the beginning of the next. -- SJK

Link to "Aromatic hydrocarbon?"

I wrote a section of "Aromatic hydrocarbon" about the origin of life. Maybe someone can link to it in this article in an appropriate place. —Vespristiano 01:23, 2004 Jan 11 (UTC)

Done, added under origin of organic molecules section. --Lexor 09:35, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article should be named Origin of life (science)?

I think this article should be moved to Origin of life (science) so that someone searching on "Origin of life" gets the disambiguation page. There are clearly several articles that relate to the origin of life. It is not for us to decide which is the one someone is looking for. A student of world cultures might very well want to know the entire spectrum of beliefs and theories about the origin of life. Also, having the disambiguation page as the first hit might reduce all the controversy that seems to clutter this talk page without making anyone feel intellectually dishonest. There could also be more discussion about the various views in the disambiguation page similar to the Evolution (disambiguation) page. I've raised the same issue with the article on Evolution for the same reasons. BTW, I am not a creationist in the slightest. --Samuel Wantman 07:43, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Links

I'd like to request that someone put an external link to Talk.Origins on the page. I feel it would only be fair in view of the several creationist/ID links already on the page. 136.176.110.112 22:54, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oxygen

What is the section about the poisonous effect of oxygen to the first generation of microbes doing in this page? It seems to add nothing to the topic. Awolf002 20:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well if oxygen was present in the atmopshere at the time that abiogenesis supposedly occured in the primordial soup, no amino acids could of come together, as oxygen gas is so reactive it dissolves those kinds of bonds between complex compounds, and generally wreaks havoc in any biological setting, it's even technically killing us every time we take a breath...just very slowely. But I do also have a question, where is the source that says that it is "generally" accepted that there was no oxygen, i've seen plenty of places out there that say it was highly more likely than we once thought, it's a shame I can't remember where they were :(. Homestarmy 02:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, this comment was made on a long ago version, with the section The oxygen holocaust. (See date) Awolf002 02:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Maybe i'll just make another section for my question then heh. Homestarmy 14:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You can trace the geological history of an oxygenic atmosphere via banded iron formations. Graft 18:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that article doesn't cite any sources, not that all articles in Wikipedia have to have them, but when your discussing things like how life began, words like "conventional wisdom" "is assumed to result from" "some geochemists suggest" don't seem to inspire much confidence in something you'd think would be very important. Also, it doesn't say how they got that date, if it was Carbon-14 dating, then that has it's own notorious problems. Homestarmy 19:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/138.130.194.229

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/138.130.194.229. Dunc|☺ 16:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, I've also protected the page to stop the vandalism. Dunc|☺ 16:48, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"creationist trolls"

Deglr6328, please refrain from calling creationists trolls in edit summaries while you are blindly deleting the cited scientific articles that are precisely on point for the article. Ungtss 05:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

mmmnope he's a troll. He just happens to be a creationist as well is all. One glance at his edits reveal that. [4] Also there was really nothing "blind" about my deletion. What "precisely" is on topic about a highly detailed extremely obscure 35 year old refutation of urey-miller experiment in this article? Oh that's right, nothing. If it belongs anywhere its in the urey-miller article SANS the wacky editorializing and pov pushing that's become so synonymous with our precious anon.--Deglr6328 06:07, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1) your link just indicates he's religiously and politically conservative, not that he's a troll. i note that the edits in which he mentioned "trolls" immediately follow you calling him a troll first. there's a log in your eye.

2) even if he were a troll, there's no justification for attacking in edit summaries, especially when his edit was composed entirely of a summary of a cited article.

3) your user page explicitly states that your primary goal is to EXCLUDE "mysticism" from pages, which is explicitly anti-npov, because npov incorporates views of "mysticism" to be presented along with all the others. You are currently executing your anti-npov agenda on this page by blocking views offensive to your pov. you are the pov-warrior in this case.

4) there is absolutely nothing "mystic" about this scientific critique of the experiments, anyway.

5) the article was cited, summarized, and from a mainstream journal. you deleted it without replacing it with any better critique, thereby reducing article quality.

6) no instances of "bizarre editorializing" have been presented, and if they had, they should have been fixed, rather than deleting the thing in it follows a summary of urey-miller above.

7) i'm not going to edit war with you, because i'm tired of it and it never ends. but don't kid yourself. you are absolutely wrong in this case, and "our precious anon" is absolutely right. Ungtss 13:15, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He has been tagged as a troll by at least two other users if you follow his edits and other users numerous reversions on many other pages. Anyway, it dosen't surprise me you find it dificult to discern the difference between actual npov and the inclusion of mystycism into legit science articles. The edit in question was not germaine to the discussion it was attached to and does not belong here. It is a highly specific critique (presented as a strawman argument by our anon. here) of urey-miller and that's where it belongs. cheers. --Deglr6328 18:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<<He has been tagged as a troll by at least two other users>>

that neither makes him a troll (any more than the pot calling the kettle black makes it so) nor justifies attacking him in edit summaries, period.

<<Anyway, it dosen't surprise me you find it dificult to discern the difference between actual npov and the inclusion of mystycism into legit science articles.>>

well thanks for explaining it to me. npov="what dglr6328 thinks it is." thanks. i appreciate it. Ungtss 18:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<<The edit in question was not germaine to the discussion it was attached to and does not belong here. It is a highly specific critique (presented as a strawman argument by our anon. here) of urey-miller and that's where it belongs.>>

proof by assertion and a hollow conclusion without providing opportunity for discussion. very nice. Ungtss 18:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Don't know what type of logic That was, but anyway I really feel there is no need for drawn out discussions on inapropriate edits by habitually anon users. If they can't take 20 seconds of thier oh so valuable time to make a username after making hundreds of edits under various IPs I'm not going to waste MY time refuting them point by point in excruciating detail on every wrong edit. --Deglr6328 23:11, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

i see your feelings about anons are the only policy of consequence, and they override any and all objections to the CONTENT of your deletions. it's okay. we're used to it. The defining characteristic of those who censor ideas is their inability to compete on a fair playing field. People only cheat if they have to. Ungtss 23:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ugh. I can practically hear the violins. Get over yourself and don't be such a martyr, it;s unbecoming. No one's out to get you. --Deglr6328 00:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Violins? It's you i pity. You're stuck in a 19th century fantasyland you can only maintain by shutting out alternative viewpoints. wanna prove me wrong? compete, don't delete. 00:10, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The soon to be deleted rules [[5]] courtesy of Ungtss' alternate playing field. Bensaccount 00:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. Why exactly did you join "my playing field" again? wikiproject:FACTS#members Ungtss 00:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't like being excluded from the editing process. Bensaccount 01:04, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

so you vote to delete a wikiproject, join it, and then gloat over the pending deletion of a clear articulation of the npov rules. excellent. carry on, sir. Ungtss 01:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I had to point out the irony in your remark about maintaining a "fair playing field". Bensaccount 01:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

i see no irony. the faq is simply a restatement of npov. npov is not in operation on the main pages. when mob rule takes over, the good work has to take place somewhere else. that's the way of the world. Ungtss 01:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

O2 holocaust

I really don't see why this is here at all. What does it have to do with the origin of life? The event happened long after life started. Removed section.--Deglr6328 05:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

God created the World

Here's a place where the anonymous user can discuss why he thinks "God created the world" is a model of the origin of life worthy of inclusion. -- Temtem 01:25, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

God created life through a simultaneous quantum fluctuation (which beyond the quantum level we can't observe) through manipulation of virtual particles and then created a self-replicating system which could support its own energy supply. So ha! (Its just not secular hence not NPOV: but suppose if supernatural beings could manipulate seemingly 50% chance quantum reactions.) -- Natalinasmpf 01:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wow that was insane. I hope THAT doesn't make it into the article.--Deglr6328 04:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The idea of a simultaneous quantum fluctuation isn't that crazy actually. It just becomes a matter of chance. -- Natalinasmpf 07:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm nnnope, I think it is in fact crazy. Are you a scientist?--Deglr6328 08:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just a secondary school student. But look at it, the very fact we have something like a quantum fluctuation happening regularly at every point in the universe that temporarily violates the law of conservation kind of insinuates a supernatural presence. -- Natalinasmpf 08:40, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stay in school kid.--Deglr6328 03:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that human beings can come long long time ago from a primordial soup. But the point of this all is that we can only be sure after we're dead (whether human come from a primordial soup or created by God) and whether there is really a God, heaven and hell. (see Pascal's Wager).

We won't find out when we die if God didn't create life, because....we'll be dead. --Vagodin 02:23, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Unless of course, we happen to have souls which cannot die.... :D Homestarmy 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV COMPLAINT

• talk:origin of life. NPOV complaint. The difficulty for the naturalist explanation of the origin of life is not even mentioned nor is the theism view presented. Why not? Is theism a fringe opinion? Is materialism a fact or does a materialistic view of the origin of life have strong proof in this forensic science question of the origin of life. Are theology departments held to be legitimate departments in academia? Are singularity events the exclusive property of materialism? Are singularity events repeatable though experiments? I see no reason to mandate a mere philosophy like materialism and again theism is by no means a fringe view.

I also cite the following:

Nobel prize winner, Sir Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA said,

“The origin of life appears almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going …. Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I swear I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts.”

Notice he says "almost a miracle". Well theist often assert it was a miracle. There doesn't seem to be any reason to rule out a miracle.

Also, Walter Bradley said, “There isn’t any doubt that science, for the moment at least, is at a dead end. The optimism of the 1950’s is gone. The mood at the 1999 international conference on the origin of life was described as grim—full of frustration, pessimism, and desperation.”

taken from: http://www.valleyviewseek.org/teach/010527.htm

Lastly, is the DNA wrongly called a code? Do codes infer intelligence? Obviously these are legitimate questions in regards to the origin of life that should be raised.

ken 20:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Did you actually read the first sentence of this article? Here it is

This article focuses on modern scientific research on the origin of life. For alternate uses, see origin of life (disambiguation).

In my oppinion your claim of a violation of NPOV is construed and incorrect, because this article discusses the scientific approaches to answering this question! I will remove that message box, if you do not have any arguments based on scientific reasoning, which by definition does not stop its inqueries and proclaim a "miracle". Awolf002 21:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

TO: Awolf

Science and the philosophy of materialism are not synonymous regarding the forensic investigation for the origin of life which likely was a singularity. Also, indirect evidence is invaluable in historical investigations since they are not repeatable. If you say the philosophy of materialism is scientific I would ask you how science has shown this philosophy to be true. What experiments are there for this philosophy that has demonstrated this philosophy to be true? I would also remind you that Francis Bacon the author of the scientific method derided atheism.

Removed NPOV banner - it seems ken ignored the disambiguation notice in the first line of the page. Origin of life (disambiguation) which leads the user to Panspermia and Origins beliefs, which he seems to think belong in this article. They don't. Vsmith 00:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Vsmith. This looks to me like the correct action.

To ken: I think you are falling into the old trap of equating the approach and methods of science with a certain believe system. Alhough many people think the same way, it is still incorrect. For further reading I would propose to you: Modern Physics and Ancient Faith by Stephen M. Barr. Awolf002 02:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. Most philosophers of science would accept that science DOES imply a specific belief system - for example, empiricism as a system of epistemology. Other things could debatably be called a belief system as well. Naturalism, certainly - the demand that we adhere to natural explanations of the world - is arguably required by an empiricist outlook. Ken demands that we allow other systems of epistemology in the door - but this would not be science. One couldn't believe in revelation and miracle and still claim to be operating on scientific principles. Where he IS wrong is, I think, in implying that a methodological commitment to naturalism implies atheism - certainly not. But it might indeed imply that the Christian outlook and biblical innerancy is a load of tripe. Graft 14:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Granted, the word "belief system" is a bit broad. What I tried to say is that using the scientific method does not imply a "philosophy of materialism," and thus an NPOV creating section of other philosophies are not needed. My conclusion is, in the context of this article, that it is unfair and misleading to call it POV when only science based arguments should be included. This article, after all, is the description of the scientific hypotheses to explain the origin of life. Awolf002 18:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

reverted text dump

I just reverted a massive text dump by User:213.228.0.86 and User:213.228.0.12 and a formatting mess that followed with the 50+ references included. It was stated to be from the Text of a conference given in Rio de Janeiro for the 100th Anniversary of the death of Louis Pasteur (February 1995). Don't think we need the whole thing plus possible copyvio problems.

Also the addition of the following was removed pending sourcing:

two artificial viruses have been synthesied by scientists from scratch - polio virus and Phi-X174 bacteriophage. While polio virus took 3 years to make and had genetic code defects, Phi-X174 was made in 14 days and was completely identical to "natural" virus. Injected into bacteria it started reproducing (and eventually killed the bacteria) - just exactly as its "natural" counterpart. Currently some researchers are trying to design a protocell (which is far more complicated than virus)

and

It worthy to note here that if soup has not been completely eaten by primitive organisms, then after plants saturated atmosphere with highly reactive oxygen about 2 billion years ago any soup remnants were likely oxidised.

both added by User:67.177.35.2 within and at the end of existing paragrphs.
Need sources for these two edits. Vsmith 00:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

omne vivum ex ovo

omne vivum ex ovo is Latin for All life from the egg or an egg. I've changed it as such. Homagetocatalonia, 22:54, 6 September, 2005 (UTC)

More literally, it actually means "every living thing from an/the egg" or "every living thing out of an/the egg". "All life from the egg" would be "Omnis vita ex ovo". But I'm quibbling, and I hate being a quibbler. -Silence 03:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

RNA

tried to add a reference to research from the university of delaware which calculates the probability of spontaneous RNA formation at 1 in 1.0e+79, but got a couple of people that don't like it. just wanted to start a discussion about why.

the researcher is an astrophysicist, Dermott J. Mullan and has been a researcher at the Bartol Research Institute since 1972. his paper on probability is very well written, it was published in the ISCID (international society for complexity, information and design) in their journal PCID (Progress in Complexity, Information and Design) - you can read it yourself right here.

basically, i'd like to see a good reason aside from things like "um..i was too lazy to actually bother looking at the link and checking the author and his affiliation, and since it makes RNA seem really impossible to be produced, this must be some kind of kooky creationist crap, so i'm going to edit it out." which is what i think is happening.

here's an example of the last reason for it being edited:

• (rv. Rem unreliable, badly formatted, badly linked line. The actual reference is hard to find on the page referenced, and purports to be scientific while being written by a IDist without qualifications)

sounds like a lazy edit to me.

so - should we put the current best guess as to the probability of spontaneous RNA formation in the article about spontaneous RNA formation, or not?

I was the second person to remove the reference. I did follow the link provided, and found it led to a table of contents, of sorts. The actually relevant article was listed, and could have been directly linked to. Hence, my suggestion that the reference was badly linked. As for the article itself, the last page contains this text:

In summary, if the first cell actually originated by random processes, the genetic code must already have existed, and conditions must have been “finely tuned” in order to trace a path through a narrow (and hostile) region of parameter space. The idea that some of the constants of the physical world have been subject to “fine tuning” in order to allow life to emerge, has been widely discussed in recent years (e.g. in the book by J. D. Barrow and F. J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Oxford University Press, 1994, 706 pp). If we are correct in concluding that “fine tuning” is also required in order to assemble the first cell, we might regard this conclusion as a biological example of the Anthropic Principle.

This in no way appears to be an actual scientific article. No scientific article would or should be worded in this manner. A quick google search turned up nothing interesting about the author, except his work for a noted ID organisation, which also calls his conclusions to question, as ID proponents have obvious reasons to want to give the impression that life could not have come to be naturally.

What's the noted ID organization? I could only find that he was an astrophysicist. Also, I don't see why you don't think it's a scientific article - just because it's worded a certain way? The author *is* a scientist, and the journal it's published in *is* scientific (sure looks that way to me.) I must admit, I'm not in tune with the whole ID vs Athiests debate, so I probably wouldn't recognize it.

I think I was right to remove the content, for other reasons too, but I have spent enough time here. Please, in future, post new sections at the bottom, and use proper punctuation. -- Ec5618 18:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I am the "second guilty" party of this revert. The problem I have with the number (and its related reference) is, that it is presented (and you repeated it explicitely above) as "current best guess" of the probability of RNA being "randomly" created. Since the reference given does not point to a journal acknowledged by the community doing the scientific research of the origin of life (which is the focus of this article), I found myself justified in regarding this numbers as not verifiable "in this context". So, I left the text but removed the number and reference. This data might fit well under the ID or creationism article, but not in here. Awolf002 18:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's pretend for a second that actually putting a real number in the article just makes it not flow very well - but let's talk about some of this crazy talk I'm reading: "a journal acknowledged by the community" ?? So just because this guy isn't in the right "club" you're rejecting his science and math? Don't you think that is sort of bigoted? I mean, it looks like really good, thoughtful research on a particular theory of RNA creation - good math and all. I mean, WTF? I don't hang out in these circles, but I'm a little surprised at some of this kind of behavior. Feels like Jr. High "Oh, he isn't cool enough to be included in the special Athiest club - he clearly doesn't know the secret handshake or run with the right crowd, he simply must be an IDist..." -- I know most religous zealots are bigots, but I'm surprised by this kind of talk.

I'm sorry, but the scope of this article is clearly stated: This article focusses on modern scientific research on the origin of life. This means that verifiable information from this research topic should be part of this article. Wikipedia has policies that requires that. Yes, this paper concludes that the probability for the described process might be that number, but I believe the publications (= communications of the relevant science community) that we use as sources for this article did not evaluate this conclusion. This is no judgement on the author or the truth of this paper. Awolf002 01:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I read the wikipedia verifiability guidelines, and I still don't understand why this probability, which can be verified by this research paper, published in a research journal, with math than can be easily verified violates this guideline? You say that this conclusion doesn't match the sources used in this article - well, then please produce the conclusions about the probability of spontaneous RNA creation that your favorite scientific sources cite. If they are silent on this interesting piece of mathmatics relating to RNA, then why not let another valid researcher be cited in this article? Is this wikipedia your own private article, in which only your favorite biologists and mathemeticians can be cited? Please, help me understand how this works.

Please sign your posts using four tildes.

This is not about censoring opposing viewpoints. It is about the article you referenced. While it may seen valid to you, it is not. It is not scientific, for several reasons. For one, it draws conclusions it really shouldn't (by literally saying that RNA could not have formed through natural means because the odds are not in its favour), and assumes that a mathematical formula can adequately explain events billions of years in the past, glossing over the fact that no science is so exact. No science claims to be so accurate, while making gigantic assumptions about the odds and about the world in that time. It is important to note that science does not prove anything, ever, and statistics do not ever disprove anything. Please understand those two concepts, because if you don't, this subject may be beyond you. -- Ec5618 03:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Dude - you've got to be kidding.

Let's see here, it's not scientific because it uses math to explains things billions of years in the past? Oh, you mean, kind of like the big bang theory postulates? or science that explains the age of the earth? Is that not scientific to you? Everything about early earth and universe science makes assumptions, probability and uses mathematical formulas to draw conclusions. If you aren't outraged by this line of thinking from Ec5618, you aren't paying attention. Please, open discussion is a great thing, but making such thoughtless comments do not help - and please spare us the ad hominems.

So, at this point, all I think we've done in this discussion is say "Mullan and the journal that published his paper isn't 'part of the club' and so we shouldn't include his science" and that's the reason for the edits? That's fantastic. Nice impartial, logical open minds. -prefetch

Feel free to read my comment, and feel free to respond to it. You are even free to ignore my remark, but please don't twist my meaning. The article is rediculous. If you are not going to read my comments, there's no real point in me explaining that to you. Initially, I felt encouraged to explain to you why the article is rediculous, but you seem more interested in congratulating yourself for puncturing the conspiracy.

Finally, read Graft's comment below. Even if the odds calculated in the article work out, the assumptions it makes make the math pointless. -- Ec5618 16:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I did read your comments, and I responded to them. First off, I don't read anywhere in the article that says "RNA couldn't be formed by natural means". Are we reading the same article? You said Mullan's article isn't scientific because it "...assumes that a mathematical formula can adequately explain events billions of years in the past..." Please, Ec5618, explain what you meant - I don't want to twist your meaning. --prefetch

Laughing at other editors is not a good idea. Now you know that.

A quote from the article (the same quote appears above):

"In summary, if the first cell actually originated by random processes, the genetic code must already have existed"

In other words, cells could not have formed through natural processes. This quote does not directly address your point, but it illustrates mine. The wording "Must have existed" is just not done in scientific texts. "We may conclude from the calculation that the genetic code would probably have had to have existed prior to formation of early cells, assuming of course that .." would have been much better.

In the end, this text seems to have been written for lay people, not the scientific community. Could you check in which peer reviewed publication the article appears? -- Ec5618 20:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you need check your level of Intellectual_honesty - please, do two things: 1) Don't pull incomplete quotes from articles out of context and 2) Read them more carefully.

The complete sentence you butcher is as follows: "In summary, if the first cell actually originated by random processes, the genetic code must already have existed, and conditions must have been “finely tuned” in order to trace a path through a narrow (and hostile) region of parameter space." And in the preceeding paragraph, he explains that the genetic code could have appeared in a similar manner as mitochondria may have, as suggested by the Endosymbiotic_theory.

But back to where we left off - you never responded to my request for clarification about what you meant when you said Mullan's article isn't scientific because it "...assumes that a mathematical formula can adequately explain events billions of years in the past..." I am eagerly awaiting your explanation for this asinine declaration you have made. Either say "Sorry, I was talking out of my bum in a zealous fit of irrationality" or explain yourself.

In the same vein as talking out of your bum, just for fun, I did an advanced search for the phrase "Must have existed" on pdf's that contained various chemical/biological key words. Above you told us that this phrase would never appear in a real scientific article. I was not surprised to find peer-reviewed papers, university text books and scientific lectures from universities and journals from around the world. Too many to list. So please, once again, stop talking out of your bum - you've doing it this whole thread. -- prefetch

You are again trying to insult me. You're new here, so I'll point you to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I suggest you read them, as it will make your time here more productive. -- Ec5618 08:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, the calculation is just tearing up strawmen. No one claims that RNA formed "randomly", not that such a thing could even be accurately computed under any circumstances. Yeesh. Graft 21:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean that "no one claims RNA formed randomly"? How else was it formed? By intelligent design? What are you talking about graft? --prefetch

The calculation in the article basically assumed that amino acids are beads, tossed into a bog box with some string, and rattled. The calculation then concludes that the odds of a specific chain of amino acids forming are slim, and that thus the odds of useful RNA molucules forming is remote.

Read the article, and look for these things: the article calculated the odds of a specific chain of RNA forming, and assumes that life must have com about through this strand. The article ignores the fact that there is no way to know which strands of RNA could have been viable.

The article assumes that the strand must be of a specific length, noting that most virusses have longer DNA, to convince the lay reader that the calculation is generous. There is no reason to assume this minimum length of RNA must have formed before autoreplication could have occured. Etc. etc.

The point Graft is trying to make is that no-one is arguing that RNA came about through chance (the big box of beads in my example), but rather that conditions such as, for example, chemical peculiarities may promote the formation of useful strands of RNA. It needn't have been random, which makes the calculation assuming randomness quite useless, and in no way representative of current scientific thought. -- Ec5618 20:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Ec5618 - this is the first reasonable contribution to the discussion you have made so far (except for the implication that the article is for 'lay' people, which is a clumsy rhetorical device to dimish the credibility of Mullan's research.) So then, if not the 'box of beads' of RNA creation, then how? Your example of "chemical peculiarities may promote the formation of useful strands of RNA" can be politely called a non-example. And to be honest, based on some of the things you've said above, your credibility is so slim, and the fruits of engaging in a reasonable discussion with you have been so poor, I'm not sure I should even ask. Perhaps someone else in the audience could assist with the question of non-random RNA formation? ::::::--prefetch

I think you missed my other points. The article calculates the odds of a specific strand of RNA forming randomly, which glosses over the fact that many other strands of RNA might be viable too. Perhaps the first molecule of autoreplicating RNA was three 'beads' long while external prosesses such as salinity or temperature facilitated the replication process. Regardless, the article is rediculous, even if I may be unable to explain it to you. Anyone familiar with scientific texts can see that the tone, the methodology and the fact that it was never published in a peer-reviewed publication all suggest it's rediculous. But trying to explain it to you seems a lot like explaining a joke. There is no way you'll find it funny. -- Ec5618 08:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I should probably explain that I initially tried to explain to you what was wrong with the link, and why it didn't belong in the article, from the point of view that you were a new editor who misguidedly added what he thought was a real scientific publication. I reasoned that you had perhaps come across the article while looking for a reference for the odds of RNA forming, as the article doesn't stipulate those. I tried to explain, in a simple and friendly tone, what was wrong, so you wouldn't make the same mistake again.

Perhaps you didn't add the link accidentally. Perhaps you are trying to add the link for personal reasons. In any case, I see little point in rehashing my arguments, or even in clarifying my points. The link shouldn't be in the article. -- Ec5618 09:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

For the edification of prefetch: the presumption that the genetic code formed ex nihilo, that is, "truly randomly" is absurd. It's equally absurd to compute the probability of the RNA for the first cell forming randomly after the genetic code was in place. There is no sense in a "genetic code" unless translation exists already and numerous functional proteins have already been specified. The genetic code must have followed the first primitive translation machinery, which completely invalidates the premise of this paper. Not to mention that the other "figures" are pulled completely out of the author's colon. Graft 17:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Graft, please hear me out here: have you even read the paper? Because it sure sounds like you haven't. (btw - that's an improper use of ex nihilo, you should know better.) What qualifies you to say that some 30 year veteran in astrophysics and cosmology is pulling things out his colon? It sort of sounds like you are saying this Mullan guy is an idiot. Your profile says you are graduate student in biology - is this your qualification to summarily dismiss his research? I mean, at least you aren't acting like a complete fool like some other posters in this thread, (I mean to say, your points are at least approaching rational discourse) but it doesn't seem right for some random graduate student to wave his hand and call another career scientist an idiot. Please explain how you can do that?

I mean, so far no one has actually made a reasonable argument as to what's wrong with this man's paper. I've heard lots of libel and irrational, emotional statements, but nothing of substance. I have no stake in this Mullan guy - for all I know he's a crackpot and a fraud - but certainly no one here has given me reason to think so.

So, what am I to make of this? I'm going to guess many (most?) of you on this thread are either not very intelligent, or very intelligent, but zealous hyper-religous athiests. That's not particularly mainstream you know - there are only 150M athiest in the world. Whereas the non-zealous, non-hyper-religious folks fall into the more mainstream agnostic (ie. "disinterested" or have no opinion of religion) crowd. There are over 750M agnostics in the world. Pure speculation, and not exactly on topic, but I can't explain a lot of the irrational exuberance on this thread any other way besides assuming that most of you folks are hardcore athiest zealots - am I incorrect? And if so, how on earth can we trust the judgement of a bunch of religous nuts? --prefetch

Actually, I did read the paper. It was nonsense, as Ec5618 said above. One reason it's nonsense is given above, if you'd care to read what I wrote with an open mind. As to whether I'm qualified to insult the author's intelligence, I think, yes, I am. I'm in my final year of graduate school in an evolutionary bio lab at a prestigious university, which puts me in contact with a fair number of luminaries of the field. Meanwhile, said astrophysicist is a definite outsider to the field of biology and contents himself with attacking strawmen and displays a lack of familiarity with the state of the art in the field (or even worse, very prosaic facts that have been well-established for years).

I don't know why you're so enamored of this paper - hundreds of other people made the same piss-poor argument. Here's an anecdote that illustrates the folly of such computations: a few decades back, when people first started sequencing proteins, they were astounded by the fact that proteins could fold to form such complex shapes. A conundrum for scientists was - how could proteins possibly explore the incredibly large space of possible folding conformations? Attempts to calculate how long it would take for a single amino-acid chain of even modest size to try every conformation resulted in folding times on the order of many times the age of the universe. And yet proteins clearly fold quickly in solution. Then someone figured out that if one simply incorporated cooperative effects - that is, as parts of the protein folded correctly, they would bring other parts into proximity and make them more likely to fold correctly - then folding times quickly collapsed to the appropriate time-scale. So, the moral is, coming up with and multiplying numbers is easy. But it's all for naught if your basic assumptions are flawed.

All told, enough said, I think. Graft 03:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I sort of don't care about the paper much anymore, I've actually become more fascinated by the irrational emotion of the editors of this particular article. I checked out your blog, and it looks like you are an athiest, so I guess my suspicions were right - you are a religious zealot, but at least you can eventually articulate a rational argument (unlike our rediculous[sic] friend, ec5618. ;-) So, I guess what probably happened was, as soon as a reference was made about the improbability of something related to early cell formation, instead of a rational discussion on the merits of the science and math, the "IDist" alarm went off - and everyone got their "defenses" ready, and then things started to go south pretty fast. (Note: I still have no idea if Mullan is an IDist as ec5618 claimed in his original edit, or if this claim was just an irrational, knee-jerk reaction on his part.)

As far as your arguments go, you cite an interesting anecdote - obviously there is a lot more to learn about early RNA formation. From the RNA_world_hypothesis article, it looks like scientists (they cite Gerald Joyce) doubt RNA spontaneously formed because of the difficulties involved. Are you aware of any research that attempts to quantify this? If you are, it'd be great to reference them in the article. I'm sure I don't understand the science as well as you do, and I'd like to learn more - but the problem is that with your overreactive emotional response to this discussion, I think your personal and professional credibility has been pretty well shot in this thread, so I think I'm at an impasse.

Graft, take some unsolicited advice: tone down your level of arrogance, and reduce the level of emotion you employ towards your arguments - it will make you a better wikipedia editor, and probably a better person. Anyway, good luck with that whole athiest religion thing you got going -- try not to let it get in the way of science. -- prefetch

Actually, I'm not an atheist. At worst, I'm an "agnostic", at best a Hindu. Also, I don't think I've applied any emotion to this argument at all. I've stuck strictly to the merits of the argument, which are very weak, and the qualifications of the author, which are similarly weak. I've pointed out why I think this is the case, and you've failed to address the arguments I've made. I also don't think I've made any religious arguments at all, so I'm not sure what you're talking about there. Graft 18:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Prefetch, I've begun to read the article to which you link. It is quite interesting, and although I've only read the first several pages so far, I am interested to read the rest when I have time. Already, however, a couple points have caught my attention. Wikipedia is traditionally quite selective with its external links; in general, a high bar is set for inclusion. Could you explain what you feel this link adds to this article? I hope you will be able to discuss this matter without insulting others, their religions, or beliefs. Please stick to discussing the issues at hand, not the editors. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Prefetch, please stop making personal attacks. Read WP:NPA. Read WP:CIVIL. Calling other editors arrogant is a personal attack, in case you were wondering, as is calling them ignorant zealots. Even suggesting a person is letting their bias cloud they judgement, simply because they have personal beliefs is a personal attack. Wikipedia's policy on this is clear. It doesn't matter what else you're saying, by actively trying to be offensive, you're not helping your case. -- Ec5618 06:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The Urantia Book

I do not see any reasonable connection to this article, so I removed it from See also. Any comments or explanations? Awolf002 20:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ooppss... Somebody else got in there before me. I guess I might be correct. Awolf002 20:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You are not correct. Please read The Urantia Book for verification as to whether this is correct. In Part III is an entire section about the origin of life, and is verifiable, is published and also has an article here in Wikipedia. Jan 28th 2006

How does a person simply writing a book make it correct, I read the Wikipedia article about it, it didn't seem very verifiable to me. Homestarmy 00:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

If you read the book, then it is verifiable according to Wikipedia standards in spite of the shoddy article at Wikipedia. The esoteric explanation of the origin of life in The Urantia Book is as credible as any theory. Check it out at: http://www.urantia.org/papers/paper57.html

You can read the theory online.

Thanks for mentioning the challenge of it being "very correct"... considering no theory on earth has proved to be.

All the best in truth seeking, Jan 28th 2006 7:29pm

Right. Please do try to explain. I'm afraid we cannot just take your word for it. There are thousands of people who believe in something. Why is this book relevant?

Please don't re-add the link, until a case for including it has been made. Thank you. -- Ec5618 01:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Linking to the entire book does not equal 'backing it up'. You said in your edit summary: I backed it up with a link; give it consideration, please see discussion. You have not backed up anything. Please read this discussion. Initially, two people tried to remove your link. You then stated that it deserved to be linked, simply because it was verifiable. I don't doubt the existence of the book, mind you, just its notability and relevance in this case. As for the credibility of the book, it is irrelevant. The book doesn't appear to be relevant. Perhaps you should take your case to Origin belief, though I doubt the book has relevance there either.

Again, there are thousands of beliefs, why should we put this book under See also, and not other books? And again, I ask you to stop reverting, and make your case first. Are you aware of WP:3RR? -- Ec5618 02:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Wait, what definition of verifiable are you using, is there some new definition of it in Wikipedia policies? Homestarmy 02:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, wait too! What about your more than three reverts? I guess you will have to explain as much detail why this does NOT belong in "see also" as I should why it should stay there - to be unbiased and fair.

I have reverted twice, you have done so three times and have added the content once initially. As for explaining why it does not belong:

• It's irrelevant to the article, which focuses on modern scientific research on the origin of life. (as per the disambig notice)
• Even in the context of Origin myths, this book is just one out of thousands. Including this book, while excluding others would seem to show bias.

You have thus far failed to show any reason to include this book. Nothing seems to make this book stand out.

Also, please sign your comments using four tildes ~~~~ -- Ec5618 02:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

in defense of Ec, I only count 2 reverts as well. Homestarmy 02:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the other "see also" entries? Then you have to read this one to say what you say and be of truth, which Wikipedia admiteddly doesn't require, it requires validation: The Urantia Book is validated because it is in print and verifiable as well; go ahead, read 2,097 pages, then refute.

You have now added the same link to Origin of life, Origin belief, Common descent and in fact, to God. Perhaps you should reconsider your stance. By the way, do you happen to know User:Hanely? Ve tried to add this book, a few days ago, without succes, obviously. + Good luck.

And I shouldn't need to repeat myself. The book is irrelevant to the article, which focuses on modern scientific research on the origin of life. (as per the disambig notice). I needn't read the book, I know it is unscientific, and this irrelevant. -- Ec5618 02:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Noone needs to refute anything, the link is irrelevant to this page as it stands. - Randwicked Alex B 02:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

That Panspermia, for one mere example, is merely a theory means it must be removed as well - that is, based on your arguments. The other "see also" references, because they are not valid and solid must also be removed, if "The Urantia Book" has to be removed, too. I cite unbias here. To know the contents is imperative for those of you claiming truth. Read the contents so you can intelligently validate or invalidate. If you have not, you have not done your homework.

Hanely 03:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

And now, inexplicably, a user similar to 69.137.116.242, with edits also concentrated around The Urantia Book, shows up. Could an admin please check the identify of these two editors. I suspect mild sockpuppetry, and violation of 3RR. -- Ec5618 03:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Revelation cannot be science - see scientific method. Guettarda 03:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The Urantia Book has science in it. You might not understand the type of "revelation" that this is. Have you given this actual, due consideration? And inexplicably there are multiple users here suddenly - and there has been no traffic for a few days. It's the weekend. I think it is misleading to have Origin Belief and Origin of Life articles, all views are supposed to be presented. There is no way you could have considered this fairly, reasonably or honestly in such a short amount of time. I think The Urantia Book belongs in the "see also". I also think the ridiculous idea to separate "origin belief" and "origin of life" articles is not a good solution to the problem of science and religion having different views. Interestingly The Urantia Book gives a good explanation of how science and religion do not have to be at odds. Hanely 08:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hanely, in what way do you feel that this link will benefit this article? Just because a book has some science in it doesn't make it a scientific work. Further, just because a work is scientific doesn't mean it should be linked in this matter. For instance, Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale is a book dealing with the origin and evolution of life, but there is no link to it here. It simply isn't relevant. Also, I don't know if you are familiar with watchlists on Wikipedia—many editors may have edited an article in the past and have it on their watchlist, even if they haven't been active on it recently. New comments will cause it to pop up on their watchlist, and seeing it come up repeatedly due to an active discussion may trigger them to come take a look—that's what happened with me at least. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Knowledge Seeker, Homestarmy, and Editors:

The title of this article is "Origin of Life" which naturally cues the reader to a very controversial issue that has points of view (POV) abounding. The subject can safely be called an unsolved and controversial mystery (from a scientific POV only - other POV say it is no mystery). Billions of human beings have varying theories, thoughts and ideas about the origin of life. Other editors have complained previously, so it is clear this is controversial.

I can see that some editors have attempted to seclude it from anything but "modern science". I feel that if the article is only addressing it from modern science then the title could be changed to reflect its specificity. I think this solution would avoid any further misunderstandings (except they will have to update that POV with the new modern scientific point of view that there is intelligent design, yet another modern POV).

As long as it is titled this way, The Urantia Book should be included among all other points of view as Wikipedia expects articles expect editors to do, and do without bias. There is a connectivity with not only 'creation' or 'creationism' and 'evolution' with ideas concerning 'the origin of life', but also ideas about who did it, how it was done, why and when. I feel The Urantia Book is useful in "see also" as an alternative point of view. I may even write a section for this if and when it gets fixed properly. The Urantia Book blends the scienctist's view with that of the religionist. One would need to read the book to see how it connects in all the various ways but mostly it is scientific and accepts intelligence as the First Uncaused Cause - as with any book, I agree that it doesn't have to be right, same with the references shown here or any other, that is not a valid argument as to why I or that anonymous user should not include it "see also" save for the concept that the article is trying to be modern science specific. Which when I saw that is what they are doing, then I realized the title should change - everyone will be confused by that as it is now. Hanely 14:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You still can't call it "science" if it is supposed to be a revealed work. Science is a way of asking questions, not a collection of "facts" about some topic. Science depends on and is intimately linked to the scientific method. Thus, science and revelation and mutually exclusive. Guettarda 15:03, 29 January 2006 (UT

OK, but the scientific method can be flawed as well as any other method in logic, so ... I agree with other editors that the name of the article should be made specific to scientific research validation. I found "Origin Belief"... don't agree with the title but don't have time to pursue it now.

Hi Editors: If science, or better the scientific method, is about asking questions and not drawing conclusions, then the title really is misleading because "Origin of Life" implies knowledge of what that origin is as being THE fact - am I correct that science continues to puzzle over it? I think the problem is going to continue as long as humankind has controversy over it, but I am not experienced enough here to continue arguing a point which humankind has argued forever ~ with fervor. I agree with the meaning behind the words in the title "origin belief" for that article, but overall people looking for it will try for "Origin of Life" first, and the disambiguation page is cumbersome, though I don't know how to fix it. This article was brought to my attention through a link at The Urantia Book page in which the words "origin of life" appear in a sentence describing what the book is about - it is linked. All I care about is honest fairness and truth in the title and the article, it looks like somebody tried to fix the link. Maybe there is another solution, though I can't think of one at the moment and I will be away later. Hanely 17:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this Urantia book, is the theory that it is presenting backed up by anything other than the book itself? Homestarmy 16:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hoemstarmy: I see you visited The Urantia Book page. Yes it is, by many sources, see "Mystery of Origin" and a subsection titled "Plagiarism" on human source material under the section "Criticism" ~ there have been attempts to find the human source material (Matthew Block is cited as one). Even though these sections describe it from a point of view of biased skeptical criticism, the information is there nonetheless - and even though the article doesn't say so, Block concluded differently than it implies at Wikipedia. Since the scientific method requires asking questions and research then shouldn't all possibilities be explored? Does this article imply that the origin of life can only be discovered by biology or modern science? Is that true? Can that itself be questioned? What is this article trying to portray, research and scientific thought on the matter? Wouldn't it be more honest to admit that neither modern science or religion can be said to have the concrete answers? Can it be said that exploration must continue becasue science can not conclude only question? Shouldn't all POV be taken under consideration for an article with this title? I think this is going to be problematic for you. Best wishes! Hanely 17:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the Urantia book makes several claims that fundamental science disagrees with, and several more that even Christianity disagrees with, so either way, it looks like this book is hemmed in on every side. It claims something about ultimatons being inside electrons which I don't know how they try to prove, an age of the universe that i've never seen any side in that particular debate ever throw out before, there's something in there about some super fast evolution theory by Hugo de vries which it says was widely discredited, is extremely racist in it's claim that black people is the product of inferior strains of man, (Origin of Species on steroids? :/) Claims that one side of mercury always faces the sun,(Not a chance) claims that sunlight is comprised of electrons, (It's pretty much provable in Quantum Physics that it's made of photons, which aren't even totally particles, if it was electrons then I don't see how atoms could exist in any degree of stability) claims that Jesus was a man named Michael of Nebadon, (If this is Michael the Archangel, then that's just Jehovah Witness belief and extremely un-Biblical) claims that God has some sort of big brother mechanism which comes into children's lives at the age of six,(Not even close to Biblical) says something about Jesus resolving a dispute between Lucifer and Satan, (Their the same thing) and says something about Jesus being guided by a "mother spirit", which sounds very mormon-esque. (And therefore, not Biblical) and is very universalist when it comes to Hell. Basically, this seems like a book of wild guesses, and although it appears very imaginatively written, I don't see why it should be in this origin of life article....though, admittedly, I don't exactly know what this article is supposed to be covering either. If the Origin belief article had, say, a list of as many different origin beliefs as possible in it, then I don't see why this Urantia book can't go there, but personally, I don't see why it should go here either, it's just too random a book that has no real support on too many fronts. Homestarmy 19:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Changing Title of Article

Hi Editors,

This article has had other editors suggest renaming it due to some editors who want it to be modern science specific and want to exclude alternative POV. What if you were to name it "Scientific Research on the Origin of Life", or "Biological Discoveries and Theories in the Origin of Life", or like was suggested before "Origin of Life, Science"?

Or something else?

Would "move this article" to a new name be the thing to do?

Hanely 14:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Since it would be against consensus, you'd probably have to drag some moderators or someone in here for dispute resolution, and besides that, doesn't the Urantia Book article already show the PoV of the Urantia book? Homestarmy 16:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Homestarmy, sorry I misspelled your nomer in another edit! The Urantia Book article on those matters is still in process of being written. I appreciate your kindness and decency here to explain that. Where might I find where a consensus was reached and how to ask for another review? I'll be away awhile. Hanely 18:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Well consensus doesn't necessarily have to be in a particular, rigid format where editors take a long time to review ideas, it simply has to be a matter of the most popular opinion. so far, it appears there are 2 for changing this article to help the Urantia book (You and that I.P. address), and 3 opposed, I think. Honestly, I don't see what all the fuss is about, but I don't see how adding in the Urantia Book link really helps this article in any large degree, and I don't see how it's worth changing the title if it's not in here, because if you change the title you have to go back and fix all the links to this article and...bleh, it's too much mess for too little a thing. Homestarmy 18:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is appropriate where it is now. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Knowledge seeker, !ahem! Knowledge seeker? How could you find all you needed to know at this article? You wouldn't.

The title of this article is inappropriate for encyclopedia users to find full information about the various, numerous theories and research being done on the origin of life. And all this despite what books are listed in "see also". Hanely 15:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a link to origin belief. Guettarda 16:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

As per KS - agree with the title. Guettarda 19:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

See what I wrote to knowledge seeker above. Title is not specific enough for the article, whatever it's intention is supposed to be, it isn't to cover world views on the origin of life. Hanely 15:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No need to change; the article makes its point clear. -- Ec5618 19:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It may make it "clear" when you finally find something to make it clear, but it is cumbersome, irritating, generally misleading and needs clean up. Title should change. Hanely 15:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Leave as is. Samsara _contrib ^talk 15:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry Hanley, but it looks like its 5 to 1, encyclopedia articles can't possibly list all the different beliefs on everything anyway, you'd have to get the personal opinion of everybody on earth and the size of the article would be increadibly long :/ Homestarmy 16:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep title as is. Vsmith 16:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep as is. This article is about the origin of life itself (and thus the best attempts to understand, document, and describe the origin of life), not about beliefs regarding the origin of life, for which there are already numerous articles. Sociology and theology should not be confused with biology and chemistry. A similar practice exists for countless other scientific articles, like heart (which explores the biology of an organ, not historical and cultural beliefs regarding the heart, which articles like heart (symbol) handle) and ultimate fate of the universe (which discusses a cosmological topic, not a sociological one, which instead falls under eschatology). We should always be clear on whether an article is chiefly about a subject matter itself, or about common beliefs regarding a subject matter (which could even include common superstitions and complete misunderstandings, not just things that are actually accepted by people who are knowledgeable, well-versed, and credentialed in the field). -Silence 17:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well said. Guettarda 19:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

For now, OK, but your article is far from being about life itself. It is about the material mechanism, very old organisms, and other biology, geology etc. It doesn't address LIFE or the origin, but something from history that is scientifically interesting and connected. All the best to you all. Hanely 22:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

God?

You people, obviously athiests are forgetting one thing. THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE ON EARTH DON'T BELIEVE YOUR CRAP! 5 billion people on earth profess a religous or religous beliefs, thus, making you, im sorry to say- a minority. You need a disclaimer on this page that says that other theories exist- because this is on a minority viewpoint. Common sense points people to the idea that something- not just chance- was behind this world. I am putting in a disclaimer. If you wish to rewrite it- go ahead- but at least put somewhere that other theories exist. Oh, and if you want numbers on my staticstics, look in the 2005 world almanac- it says the following about religous adherence world wide: Baha'is - 6 million Buddhists- 350 million Chineese folk religons- 381 million Christians- 1.9 billion Confucanists- 6 million Ethnic religons- 225 million Hindus- 799 million Jains- 4 million Jews- 14 million Muslims- 1.15 million New Religonists- 100 million Sikhs- 22 million Spiritists- 2 million Other religonists- 1 million Members of no organized religous belief - 750 million Athiests- 300 MILLION

So according to these figures, which I directly copied out of the almanac (although I rounded on many figures), YOU ARE A MINORITY IF YOU ARE AN ATHIEST. So therefore, do not press a minority view, that cannot be proven onto the rest of the world until you havve UNDENIABLE proof. Common sense tells most people (5 billion or more) that a higher power was behind this very complex world, so stop trying to press your views on everyone else. A disclaimer is necessecary. I dont care if it's rewritten- as long as you put thee basic point: no one is sure if what you are saying is right and that most people on earth believe to the contrary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.150.147.138 (talk • contribs) .

Please use a civil tone in discussion. Making assumptions about others' religious beliefs is likely to be counterproductive. You confuse science with religious beliefs. Science does not propose that God exists; it does not propose that God exists; it simply states there is no evidence that God exists. I'm not sure if you read the article; the first line states: "This article focuses on modern scientific research on the origin of life. For alternate uses, see origin of life (disambiguation)" which seems quite clear to me. If you would like to argue that atheists are a minority, you are welcome to do so, and will likely not meet much opposition; this would be relevant perhaps at Atheism or Religion. It really isn't relevant here. You make an assumption that everyone who believes in a religion does not believe scientific explanations of the origin of life. This is not true. Many editors here (including me) are religious, yet see no conflict between science and religion. Your argument that most people are part of an organized religion and therefore do not accept the ideas in this article is not correct. Nor is it relevant. For instance, the page on Christianity does not disclaim that most people do not believe in Christianity and that its views are false. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It's true this article does only focus on scientific conclusions which most seem to use to justify evolution, though I don't see how all the screaming will change anyone's minds, and I also agree with Knowledge Seeker that this article has to necessarily only imply Atheist beliefs. Technically speaking, you can sort of be an evolutionist and actually be a Christian (Intelligent Design is often like that) though it does propose several Biblical problems to be sure :/. At any rate, you don't have to caps lock shout at people nor will it really do anything especially on Wikipedia, and especially when thier not all Atheists.....and besides, didn't someone add in a link to creationism or something at like the very very bottom awhile ago here as a comprimise? Homestarmy 02:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Wait, I don't believe this article does or should imply atheist beliefs—I'd say it's more agnostic. Atheists believe that God does not exist. Science does not say that God does not exist; it does not even say that God didn't individually create each animal and plant. What it does say is that there is a far simpler explanation for the origin of today's life, one that is based on observed patterns and interactions that have been previously observed. Perhaps God created life in those patterns (perhaps to mislead us, perhaps for purposes we cannot fathom); perhaps God created the patterns and interactions themselves and life evolved as we have observed it (and perhaps there is no God). Science does not say that either proposal is false, just that there is no evidence for it and there is a far simpler model. Many religious leaders have given support to scientific inquiry, most recently the Dalai Lama, if I recall. Several prominent Roman Catholic leaders have expressed support for evolution. There are many very religious people who do not see science as a threat to their belief, and I count myself as one of them. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Wait, what, why did I write it has to imply Atheist beliefs? Did my fingers type words not of my brains design? Im sorry Knowladge, I should of been agreeing that it wasn't Atheist, I dunno what happened :(. Homestarmy 02:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think consensus is that this page describes the scientific approach to finding the origin of life. As said above, this does not entail conclusions about the existance of God, and is "out of scope" of this article. The note at the top and maybe some "See also" links should suffice to direct the reader to other explanations based on popular beliefs, mostly invoking supernatural forces. Please, keep this section you are "pushing" out of this article. Awolf002 12:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

we don't vote truth!!!!!! yes science can't tell any thing about god BUT she could explane in a scientific way religious beleaf in people. And thus explane in a scientific manner ...why you don't beleave in the scientific explanation of the origine of life.(hahahahahahaha...,nead some aspirine?)--Ruber chiken 20:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Who what where now? Homestarmy 01:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

History of the concept

I re-wrote this section, with the aim of improving the structure and making it clearer for the average reader. No new material has been added, except a few small examples of what was once considered spontaneous generation. I also tried to include in here any relevant material from the separate article Abiogenesis, which merely erpeats this article and appears to be a POV fork aimed at giving creationists a platform for views critical of the scientific view of life-origins. PiCo 05:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Religion

Shouldn't something be mentioned on the religious views of the origin of life? RENTA^{FOR LET?} 03:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Like the tag on the article says: "This article focuses on modern scientific research on the origin of life. For alternate uses, see origin of life (disambiguation)." So, no, it shouldn't. PiCo 03:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are rock formations considered a precursor to life?

The premise of abiogenesis seems to be that there is insufficient time on the earth for life to have generated. It states that the time period between the first rocks in Greenland and the first evidence of life is a very short time. Why are rock formations considered a precursor to life? Obviously, the cooling of the magma is a factor. Couldn't life have evolved out of superheated liquid water, gas geysers, or some other environment that doesn't require rocks but might be sufficently cool? svanloon 03:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that rocks are a precursor, however, ancient rocks contain the evidence. superheated liquid water, gas geysers, or some other environment that doesn't require rocks simply will not be preserved for us to find and investigate. The evidence is where you find it -- and old rocks is it. Precursor, dunno; Preservor, yes. Vsmith 04:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think another way of saying it is that if life evolved without rock formations, then it's not really possible to test. Therefore it's in the releam of belief/convictions rather than in science because there aren't any truly good theories or evidence that currently support it. svanloon 10:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion on establishing context in this article

I think this aricle would be improved, for the lay reader, by a linking section or paragraph that explains how modern theories have developed in the context of Molecular Biology, a new field in the 20th century. This might be done by turning the last paragraph in the Aristotle section (Oparin) into a paragraph in the next section, and inserting a lead paragraph in front of it. --Metzenberg 02:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Another suggestion. This article reads like a list of theories, with little to tie them together or organize them in context. For example, the theories of the origin of life really belong in several different categories.

1. Molecular Evolution a. How did the precursor organic molecules end up being here. b. What were the first forms of metabolism and genetic coding, and how did they get started and turn into an energetically self-sustaining and self-replicating system.

2. Where on Earth? a. What was the environment of early Earth like? b. In what micro-niche on Earth did an energetically self-sustaining and self-replicating system begin, from which all life must have evolved.

I would suggest that the article be organized with the "Where on Earth?" section first, followed by the Molecular Evolution section.

--Metzenberg 02:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit boldly. (Meaning, go ahead and have a try.) PiCo 12:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Not quite ready for that. I have to do some reading before I try. I really like the introductory material you have added. I think all the materials are here for a great article, but they need to be rearranged better. How would you like to contribute a context paragraph about Molecular Biology in the 20th century, or edit one that I write, if I rough it out. --Metzenberg 00:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I know nothing about molecular biology, or any other branch of science. The material I added was about science history, and was based on a single book, Paul Davies' "The Origin of Life". I'm pretty good at filleting a 250 page book and turning it into three paragraphs. But I have no expertise of my own to offer. If you want to write something, I'd be happy to have a look at it for style, but that's about as far as I can go. PiCo 05:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

mars not just panspermia variation

in Primitive" extraterrestrial life (at the end of the article) the mars theorie is shone like if it was just a variation of panspermia (so that the problem is moved but not solved).It was intended to EXPLANE why life apired so fast on earth,imediatly after she cooled down,pop thers life.thats strage ...the mars explanation is that since it s a smaller planet she cooled down very fast,permiting prelife evolution to take place at her pace at the time that earth was stil boiling (it s more than a billion years i think,this have to be checked) so earth was seeded imidiatly when she was wredy with alredy very evolved bacteria ,so ... no focil of any simplest form than a certen degree is possible to be fond on earth(thats very anoying for scientist) my english is terible so i don't wan't to put that cind of writing on the article(this or nothing) if some one could add the comlite theory it whould be very nice,it s seems to me a very "hum" cinde of theorie

Important new discovery Methanosarcina acetivorans

In a new article published recently in Astrobiliogy Magazine:

http://www.astrobio.net/newsn/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1961&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

James G. Ferry and Christopher House discovered that the microbe (archeum) Methanosarcina acetivorans uses a previously unknown metabolic pathway to metabolize carbon monoxide into methane and acetate (vinegar). This pathway is surprisingly simple, and has been proposed by Ferry and House as perhaps the first metabolic pathway used by primordial microbes. They further hypothosize that in the presence of minerals containing iron sulfides, as might have been found in sediments in a primordial enviornment, acetate would be catalytically converted into acetate thioester, a sulfur-containing derivative. Primitive microbes could obtain biochemical energy in the form of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) by converting acetate thioester back into acetate using PTS and ACK, which would then be converted back into acetate thioester to complete the process. In such an environment, a primitve "protocell" could easily produce energy through this metabolic pathway, excreting acetate as waste. Furthermore, ACK catalyzes the synthesis of ATP directly. Other pathways generate energy from ATP only through complex multi-enzyme reactions invloving protein pumps and osmotic imbalances across a membrane.

I think this is an important new discovery in the origin of life and I'd like to add it to this page. Considering the new metabolic pathway is alot simpler than other known pathways it could explain the seemingly "miraculous" autogenesis of life. Other metabolic pathways are much more complex and require a bigger stretch to suppose they arose out of nothing.

Conisdering all the discusion here I thought it wise to propose this here first.

Oops, forgot this Rich.lewis 16:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)